Why I Chose Libertarianism as my Party of Choice

Most of you by now know that politics tend to divide people especially conservatives(republicans) and liberals(democrats). This political turmoil made me realize that I have a lot more things in common with libertarians than with democrats or republicans.

1.) My way of staying neutral

Technically speaking Libertarianism is right wing but it is closer to the center than some other political parties.

2.) I believe Democrats and Republicans have pros and cons

I do agree with some republican political views but not others. Likewise, I agree with some democratic political views but not others.

3.) I believe individuality should be respected

I don’t care what way of life somebody lives, as long as they don’t hurt anyone or anything. Their way of life should be respected, no exceptions. Just because I respect your individuality doesn’t mean I advocate what you believe in. In other words tolerance does not always equal advocacy.

4.) Liberals/Democrats neglect Asian-American community

People have asked me “if you believe in equality, why don’t you call yourself a liberal?” My response is that just because something is written on paper, doesn’t mean it’s what is in practice. A lot of liberals/Democrats have proven on several occasions that they could care less about the interests of the Asian-American communities. As someone who is of part Asian-American ancestry, I’m not going to support a political ideology that views Americans of Asian ancestry as “canon fodder”. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/02/asians-face-racism-social-justice-warriors-accuse-them-privilege/

6.) Liberals/Democrats oppose weapon ownership

As Someone who believes every law abiding citizen should have the right own weapons for self defense and recreational use, I notice that a lot of liberals just look for a excuse to oppose gun ownership. I understand that some people who are pro-gun control because of previous bad experiences with gun control but it’s not fair for a few bad apples to ruin it for responsible law abiding gun owners.

I’m not saying every liberal discriminates against Asians, neglects men’s issues or is against gun owner ship but there is a large number who are like this.

7.) Conservatives support death penalty

I personally do not support the death penalty because innocent people can fall victim to it. Polls have shown that 85% of conservatives/Republicans support the death penalty, while 58% of Democrats/liberals support it. In my opinion, prisoners should be treated like people that need help with their moral judgement. Prisoners should have access to psychologists, philosophers and sociologists. The death penalty should only be used for exceptions, such as individuals who have committed atrocious acts but only if there’s 100% certainty that they committed it and if they show no remorse.

8.) Conservatives support limiting privacy

I personally value my privacy. Anything that’s on my social media accounts are things that I don’t mind publicizing. However there are things that only I or my close family members know such as medical history, family life, habits etc. Those things don’t go on my social media account or are known by anyone else.

I’m not saying every conservative supports the death penalty and reducing privacy

9.) I’m don’t support censorship/bans

In my opinion, the acts of banning and censoring infringe on human rights. Whether it be censoring books, pieces of entertainment, movies, political views or even banning certain practices in sports are inconsiderate actions. I do not support any kind of censorship/bans, no exceptions. For example; I don’t support 4th wave feminists or Marxists but I’ll still respect their right to express those ideologies as long as they don’t infringe on my rights. Right infringement is something these two ideologies(4th wave feminism and Marxism) can’t seem to avoid.

I do not hate liberals or conservatives because I know not all are extreme and as I’ve said both sides have pros and cons but that doesn’t mean I’ll call myself a liberal or conservative, I rather call myself libertarian because it’s my way of saying I’m neutral when it comes to Conservatives vs liberals. While a lot of my political views are libertarian, I do have several independent political views as well.

Most Helpful Girl

Thank you!! I’ve been a libertarian since middle school, and it’s so nice to see (in the metaphorical sense) someone else who knows what it is. I’ve had people tell me it’s not a real party, and a teacher say “oh so you’re independent party” when I said I was libertarian.

3

1|2

0|0

Most Helpful Guy

Loved it. Extreme political devoted junkies to a certain party are immuned to seeing and understanding life and other people's views through a different set of lens.

I'm not into politics, but being in the middle of the political spectrum makes logical sense, since the world is constantly changing and one must adapt and not get stuck with a ideology or just one strick view point.

Ex. A conservative economy might do well now because it's needed, but within 5 to 8 years a liberal economy might be needed to adjust to the change that has taken place financially etc.

3

0|3

0|0

Join the discussion

Sign up or log in to share

What Girls Said 9

definitely, everyone should understand that when it comes to politics, everything is a spectrum, nothing is black or white, but rather, personal ideas overlap. every political party has its pros and cons but it doesn't mean that we are subject to their exact philosophies or ideologies, which they vary depending on time and issues. and they simply represent what we best identify as, though we might agree with their core values.i also identify best with libertarian ideas. i really think that the problems today have really gotten out of control, and the bipolarity of the political parties are not making any situation any easier. and certainly, the protests and the influence of the progressive movements have caused conservatives to fight back and to get empowered to stand up for themselves. many of them, as well as myself, are getting fed up with being dictated to by the "left". i wonder what will happen in the next couple of years

Politics is controversial, usually trying not to show my opinion to avoid argument, anyway it is interesting to read of it about the USA because I'm foreigner and even if studying it in school I don't know it so well, though one question if I can...Is point #4 really true?

Number 4 is definitely true but since she thinks I’m a bad person just for not giving in to her indoctrination, of course she’s going to try to discredit me. She’s a liberal so of course she’s going to deny it’s true.

@Astoriana There you go again making generalizations and name calling. If I wanted to, I could stoop down to your level as well but I rather be professional about this. Even though you beat around the bush and ignore many of the key points, you still have the audacity to keep arguing. You just keep proving my points with each reply, you just can’t seem to accept that not everyone is going to share the same views as you, so you try to indoctrinate people with your ideology.

I find it ironic that you keep calling me a tinfoil hat when the people who share your views consider Trump the next “Hitler”. So just stop talking.

@Astoriana I’ve already told you on various occasions why there isn’t one of those, yet you refuse to listen. So I don’t know why you are still bothering to argue when you are going to keep repeating the same thing over and over.

It's that attitude that is allowing for these parties never being elected. Imagine if every student ganged up and mass voted a specific party. They would get in! I hate people like you... "Oh, I voted for a party I don't actually like because the person I wanna vote for will never get in".

@InTimoreDei it’s a numbers game, vaquero. You need a majority to win an election, and a presidential candidate needs to win the electoral college. That’s literally never going to happen for a libertarian or independent candidate.

If the only candidate you like is never going to win, why even bother voting in the first place? I mean, I'd rather vote for someone I knew would never win the election than voting for someone I despise. At least then I can stand for what I voted for.

If people dared to vote for a third party candidate, let's just say that Trump wouldn't have won. He just won because people saw him as the lesser of two evils, and the way he was treated by the media was what made people sympathize with him a lot more than Hillary.

It doesn’t matter if the person has little to no chance of winning. This is about ideology, I’m not going to vote for a political party I’m not enthusiastic about just because they have a higher chance of winning.

Calling something a fairytale just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t make it a fairytale, we’ve discussed this before.

You’re basically trying to force your views onto me, that’s exactly what us libertarians are against. You don’t have to agree with my political views but you still can’t force your views onto me.

In regards to your original comment, just because I’m libertarian doesn’t mean I have to always vote for a libertarian candidate, I can vote for a candidate of a different party that I believe has similar values to the candidate of my political party.

Except you do believe in fairytales. Heterophobia, for example, is a fairytale.

Voting for a libertarian candidate will never result in reducing discrimination of Asian people in America, because a libertarian candidate will never be elected to any meaningful office. So that’s also a fairytale.

You wouldn’t know what the truth was if it came up to you, introduced itself and bit you on the nose. Not that it would be able to reach your nose, given that your head is shoved so far up your own ass that I’m sure you can watch your own digestion.

I can’t respect someone who makes a mockery of the scientific method, with no knowledge of or respect for academia and who uses big words to make himself seem intelligent. If you were half as smart as you pretend to be, you would get down off of your high horse and realize that the bullshit discrimination against straight people you literally made up because your feelings got hurt by a standup comedian wasn’t real.

My friend was raped by a man back in 2016 and because of his trauma, he's disgusted with the idea of homosexuality. He doesn't think that they shouldn't have the same rights as everybody else and he would never judge anyone for being gay, but because of his PTSD, the thought of it makes him panic. Despite having an understandable reason, and despite not wanting to take away any rights for gay people, he's being labeled as a homophobe. Then there's another friend of mine, a female friend, who was raped by her ex-boyfriend. She used to identify as bisexual but after that experience, she cannot stand the idea of being in a heterosexual relationship and her trauma causes her to be very uncomfortable with the idea of any kind of heterosexual intimacy. But despite it being the exact same thing as my other friend, no one judges her for that. Which they shouldn't, because it's completely valid. So tell me, how is it NOT heterophobic to treat straight people worse than non-straight people?

Being "mean" to straight people is not heterophobia.Treating someone differently because they're straight, THAT'S heterophobia. The same way treating someone differently because they're gay is homophobia, treating someone differently because of their race is racism and treating someone differently because of their gender is sexism. It doesn't matter who it is against. If it's discrimination to do something to someone, then it's also discrimination to do the same thing to anyone else. If it's racist to say something towards one race, then it's racist to say the same thing to any other race.

@AD240pCharlie he literally wrote a take about how mean comedians are to straight people, and so suddenly heterophobia is a thing.

Listen, no one discriminates against you for being straight. You’re not denied jobs or housing or adoptive children or cakes or pizza or literally anything for being straight. I imagine your friend receives more flak for being a male rape victim than he does for being supposedly homophobic, given how narrow a lens through which our culture views masculinity. Having LGBT relationships on TV and comedians making jokes about straight people leaving babies in dumpsters is not discrimination. Not even close.

Whatever you want to say, just don’t expect to change my political views because you will not succeed in doing so. This whole take was simply referring to ideology not who I choose to vote. Kind of ironic that you keep telling me to “learn how to read”.

If all you are going to do is insult someone just for having different political views, them don’t even bother commenting.

They are fallacies that you keep using, if you want to me to stop pointing out your fallacies, then stop using fallacious arguments. As a matter of fact, just stop replying if you are not going to contribute anything to this conversation.

Kind of funny how you question my credibility when all you’ve been doing is stooping down to petty insults instead of having a civilized discussion. And yes I did research prior to this take but I’m not going to plagiarize sources just to satisfy some self entitled individuals.

1. Just a quick comment, a university might not be the best place to get accurate information anymore considering the amount of propaganda being shoved down student's throats.2. Actually, no one has judged him for being a male victim yet, with the exception of some feminists, of course, but that's a whole other story. The only thing people have judged him for is the fact that he, because of his trauma, cannot stand the thought of any kind of homosexual intimacy.

The problem is that students do not get to hear different perspectives so they cannot question them or find out how valid they are.Let's take one example from my third year in the Swedish version of college, we were writing an essay about how gender affects our behaviors. Now, my teacher had always been very keen on teaching us that gender norms are just the result of society and nothing to do with biology - despite most of the scientific community (with the exception of sociologists which is often not even considered a valid field to being with) disagreeing with that - and I included a short part in my essay where I briefly went through the biological and evolutionary traits associated with gender, and despite linking to multiple psychological, neurological and biological studies, he lowered my grade because of that part, and didn't even give me a reason.It wasn't until after I finished the year that I found out that I'm not the only one who has experienced something like this.

@AD240pCharlie so, you got a bad grade and you believe that’s censorship?

Oh, sweetie. You poor little snowflake.

The last PM of Canada made it literally illegal for federally employed scientists to publish any research related to climate change. They had to change conclusions to suit the Conservative Party’s agenda about how the oil industry was good. It’s not even much better now. That’s real censorship. That’s real propaganda.

If you read my comment properly, you'd realize that I never said "censorship", I said "propaganda". It's not censorship because no one stopped me from finding that information. But it IS propaganda because despite what I wrote being scientifically accurate, it wasn't accepted as such because it didn't fit the political agenda of the Swedish education system. And I never said that this is something that conservatives don't do, why do you think we even have this argument to begin with? It's because I hate both the liberal and the conservative agenda because both sides use flawed logic, unreasonable arguments and manipulative debate tactics.

Who said libertarians weren't empathetic? They just see the bigger picture, and realize that comforting someone for the moment is often doing them great harm in the long run, and that sometimes "tough love" is the only thing that will really help someone.

Take a drug addict. Few addicts want to go to rehab - they're going to suffer mightily when they're detoxing and they'll be miserable for a while, and they know it. But in order to not kill themselves with drugs, that's almost always what has to happen. No one likes seeing them in pain, but the pain serves a much larger purpose.

Too much empathy could (in this example-as-metaphor) lead someone to get a drug addict more drugs so they felt better temporarily - which it would - but would only make the addiction, and all its associated problems, worse. In the long run, that's far more cruel, even if it seems kind in the moment, and you did it with the best of intentions.

@VaIiant why?Because while life isn't fair doesn't mean we should try to make it so.In country with the largest economy there is no universal health care like the rest of the western world?That people die of treatable diseases because they can't pay? Including fucking children?Why should you because human life and society are worth more than keeping the wealthy as wealthy as possible.

@Waffles731 ok, first off, don’t assume you know ANYTHING about me. Is my family wealthy? Yes. Am I extremely grateful to have grown up with a roof and food and other things? Absolutely. But I worked my ASS off for everything, my dad grew up poor and worked his way up and decided I should do the same. I work two jobs to put myself through one of the top universities in our country, which I got into because I worked damn hard in school. The government has no place to take such a large chunk of money from my family just because you think they should. Tell you what, go earn a bit, and then tell me how YOU feel when someone takes it all to pay for people who’ve never earned it.

@VaIiant and The reason I didn't answer your question, is because its utterly pathetic when the wealthy claim, 'why should i help people who aren't wealthy through my taxes whaaa,' when there are people who work three jobs just to scrape by on food and rent and can't afford things like healthcare amd other necessities

@VaIiant ky claims have been backed up by proof, France has universal health care, The W. H. O rates them as the number one system in the world.And how is that acceptable?Because some people despite working their asses off can't afford to pay for themselves or their kids.Don't claim that its unfair when people die because they or, their parents can't pay for proper treatment

@VaIiant and what's really fucking ironic is people like you call yourselves christians when your views on those less fortunate are, Fuck you got mine, and the environment are, who gives a fuck about the earth

@Waffles731 France has had a reliable health care system for years. Unlike the former health care plan, it’s actuallu decent and covers the wealthy as well. Hah, I might despise Trump but Obamacare is flailing under his presidency. It won’t last another 2 years. Have fun with your little “waaahhh I’m poor everyone should be responsible for me!!” Tirade. The pendulum is swinging back to conservative, and my family won’t have to cover your ass. Have fun with your liberal ideals.

@VaIiant actually no its not, the fact is that my generation is rhe largest and extremely liberal.And when the baby, boomers finally do the world a favor and start dying things are going to be different

@VaIiantGod did, say this according to your religionEzekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.

@Waffles731 we’re part of the same generation, you realize? The second OUR generation starts making money, they won’t be so liberal. You know what they say. “If you’re a conservative in your 20’s, you have no heart. If you’re a liberal in your 40’s, you have no brain.”

@VaIiant “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

@VaIiant right you mean the quote that no one can trace the origins of and no, this generation has been shown to be way more liberal than rhe past ones. Things like the recession caused by conservatives and corporate greed have had their effect

@Waffles731 I never said I was Christian. Why are you bringing religion into an argument about POLITICS? Yes, you can google bible quotes, good job. Goddamn you’re moronic. I’m not going to change your views I’m not going to change mine. You’re not worth my time. Thought we could have a good debate, you googled some bible quotes. Have fun being poor because you think we should all pay for you. Cya.

@VaIiant I've seen you post that you are Christian,And me, I work and go, to school am I poor? No, I'm going to school to be a PIBut unlike you whiny little rich girl, I give a shit about people other than myself

@VaIiant if you're that wealthy, be grateful for what you have. Not everyone is born as fortunate as you. And in the situations where parents are poor, it's children who suffer most. You not being able to buy your 3rd vacation home is a lot less dire than children suffering from diseases because their parents cannot afford health care.

This is exactly the mindset I cannot get behind, which is why ill never be libertarian nor conservative again.

@BuchitaBuchys I already said I was extremely grateful for being born into a wealthy family. We also lived below our means, and "vacation home" who do you think I am? Warren Buffet? I'm perfectly fine with giving hundreds of thousands away by myself. If the charity is honest, and actually helps people in need, I fully support it. (I don't have that kind of money, but for my parents or others who do). But the government has no place in wealth distribution. That's the thing, *its my money*. There has to be a better idea for our country then taxing the shit out of the rich and taking 0% from others. In history, tax for the wealthy has gone up to 95%. Sometimes, its gone to 90% in recent years. How would YOU feel if, for every dollar you made, you got to keep 10 cents? Stop talking about OTHER people's money. What about yours? Are you willing to give every dime to the government without knowing EXACTLY what they're going to do with it?

@VaIiant I do pay taxes, as you do too. And I am not complaining about it. And you don't give every dime away. Neither do I.I don't feel entitled to anyone's money. We all pay our share, at least I know I pay.

You're only further proving my point, right leaning folk have less empathy. Hence, why I can't support it. The disregard for others, particularly those in need, is just not in me.

It's not "our share", when some people in this country pay several million dollars in taxes. Your words certainly seem entitled, since you believe other peoples money should pay for your health care/benefits. Yes, my heart goes out to the kids, and I would help them all if I could. But taking every dime from wealthier folk is not the way to go.(If you have health care that you pay for yourself, I take that last part back and apologize.)

@VaIiant I don't have healthcare actually. I'm not advocating for myself, since I don't really care about myself. I'm advocating for children who can't pay, who are paying for their parents misfortune, for disabled people who cannot work for their "share", for elderly who cannot.A libertarian society would weed off the "leaches", but it'll also hurt the vulnerable. While there are those who abuse the system - I fully support welfare reform to remove them; it does create a system of dependency, which, again, I'm fully against and would prefer be eradicated; and also reform on how the system itself is run since a lot of money is wasted on the paper pushing and bureaucracy, but it should still be in place as a safety net for those who cannot.I argue about this with my boyfriend all the time, he's libertarian, I wouldn't say I'm liberal, but I definitely agree with them more.

Trump once paid roughly $223 million in taxes. How is that okay? And yes, it will hurt the vunerable. Elderly have social security, but there should be some way to protect kids. But the 20 or 30 somethings who do literally nothing and expect to ride on the wealthy's back? There should be a way to protect the people who can't provide for themselves. But its not taking millions and redistributing it.

@VaIiant ok, but how much does he make though? Last I checked, he's a billionaire. 223 mil out of just 1 billion is a lot yes, but only a 22% tax rate. Which is actually less than what I pay, proportionately, in taxes. They take out about 24% in taxes and I'm nowhere near a billionaire, millionaire, not even a "thousandaire". So yes, you may pay more, Trump may pay more, but contrary to your prior statement, yes I am paying my share in taxes. Proportionately, obviously I cannot afford to pay the exact same as you or Trump, but nearly the same percentage is taken from our checks.

If welfare isn't the solution, which guess what, is not just coming from rich people like you, since I also pay, what is your proposed solution?

It wasn’t a year when he made a billion. He made 470 mil that year. They took 223 mil out of it. I truly don’t think there is a foolproof solution. The world is unfair to a degree. But that degree crosses the line when the government is literally robbing people.

@VaIiant then, yes, that's problematic. Taking nearly half is ridiculous. Ok, what is your solution, even if it isn't foolproof? All I hear from libertarians and conservatives is eradicating, but nothing to replace it.I'd concede with welfare reform. In Maryland I think it was, they changed the requirements in that if you're able body, you have to work at least part time. Otherwise, you cannot receive benefits. I fully support that. But they still are giving help to even those that work but cannot afford groceries, healthcare etc. Especially those with families.

I don't think universal healthcare is viable for the US. I'd be more likely to support a free market, truly free market, healthcare. But I still think there should be a safety net for those who even then wouldn't be able to afford it. Hence, why I can't be libertarian.

I’ve always thought that if you were a certain age (say, below 18) you could qualify for some kind of health care, but the problem with that is people always find a way around that. Maybe free health care would work, if it was truly free and was extended to all people in the US. For instance, under Obamacare, my family didn’t get “free health care”. Quite the opposite. It’s not free, it’s just other people paying. That was always my issue with it.

@VaIiant they have/ had kids care from what I remember. But that was back then. But only for low income. Not sure how it's like now.Nothing will ever be truly free.But seeing it as "why do I have to pay for others?" Will surely make the more fortunate feel resentment towards the poor.

I really don’t think there is. Libertarian isn’t so much about weeding out the vulnerable rather as believing the government has no place controlling our finances/benefits/being so integrated into our lives.

What Guys Said 47

i agree that there are policies on both sides that i support and policies on both sides that i disagree with but i also feel like being a libertarian disenfranchises you in many states. your voice isn't heard in many state primaries where they are closed (like my state) and for that reason i think my voice needs to be heard to at least nominate the major party candidate i agree with most. so effectively my voice would be silenced until the general election

only one thing i'd argue"6.) Liberals/Democrats oppose weapon ownership"i don't think we can say this with such a broad strokesimilar i don't think we can say conservatives support the death penalty. the ideologies (liberal/democrat) don't speak at all to a belief one way or the other on these issues. these are personal beliefs not ideological beliefs

At least that's not the common understanding of the position. Libertarians are opposed to authoritarians. Libertarians are for limited government and prioritize personal freedoms, whereas, authoritarians want increased government intervention and may prefer to make policies based on the group rather than the individual.

I, for example, am a frequently conflicted left-leaning libertarian. I think that so long as a person is properly educated they should be able to... take whatever drugs they want, kill themselves, eat as much as they want and weigh 500lbs, do whatever they want with their genitals (with a properly consenting partner), etc.

I agree with a lot of your take though I don't identify as libertarian.

I will say I don't believe gun control is necessarily bad if done right. i do believe in background checks before being able to get a gun, and restrictions on weapons one can own. Nobody really needs an assault rifle or machine gun. Though I do support handguns and shotguns.

Being Canadian, and seeing our laws on resticted weapons (some of which make no sense), I more or less agree with them (they could be a bit more lenient on the melee weapons but I'll take what I get). I believe gun control if done right, in America can help drop the number of mass shootings and respect the second amendment rights of americans. The main reason for the second amendment was so that people could protect themselves from wildlife and other threats. At the time guns didn't have the technology that they do today.

Good take. I'm a Republican at the moment, but would probably be a Libertarian if it were a major party. I largely disagree with the GOP on the issue of gay marriage (I'm bisexual). However, I voted for Trump because I viewed him as being relatively liberal on social issues and ultimately someone who could help the economy.

My questions for you are these: 1. What do you do in local elections where no libertarian candidate is running?2. What do you say to people who assert that you're just throwing your vote away?

1.) I’d vote for the candidate that has similar views to mine. 2.) I tell them that I vote for a Libertarian based on ideology, I won’t vote for a candidate of a poitical party I’m not very passionate about just because they have a higher chance of winning.

On the subject of #2, why specifically do you feel voting based on values is better than voting for the candidate that is closer to them that can win? What's the point in voting for someone who has no possibility of actually gaining power and changing things?

I enjoyed this. I agree with most points presented. I don't agree with pure libertarianism because I believe some systems are handled more efficiently by the state, but I largely agree with your presented points. I;m in Australia though, and although we have a libertarian party, it is extremely small (no sitting politician is a member I believe).

I think you're hitting on some good points, mainly that the US desperately needs a serious 3rd political party that has similar power to the reps and dems. I think Libertarianism has drawbacks too though. The pursuit of absolute freedom DOES create an unjust environment in many specific types of cases. Read up on externalities for more info in that arena.

I've been calling myself a centerest for a very long time and hoping my skeptic community can get this 'Liberalist' thing off the ground with something I can get behind. Your viewpoint is a lot like mine and I'd like to know more about this Libertarianism... I've heard a few people of note mention they were Libertarian, but I have had the chances or a place to really dive into their views on principles. To be honest I'm more familiar with the Alt Right and Identitarianism which has some overlapping viewpoints... like the distaste for these ANTIFA/SJW/(phuck waved) feminist/BLM/regressives... basically the shit funded by Soros. For me Republicans are just the lesser of two evils and that's because Trump has made it such... wasn't always though.

Any links would be appreciated or possibly youtube personalities... I've been curious about Libertarianism for a while.

can't say I agree with all your points since you pick and choose between what the ideology behind the party says and what a group of people in the party says to fit your argument.

For example you talk about how Liberals/Democrats oppose gun ownership when that is a very small voice in the party. Most liberals and democrats are completely fine with people owning guns as long as there are enough safe guards in place to ensure the guns are sold to people with the training and character to not misuse them.

Or that Republicans support government intrusion into your private life which is really very far away from what they want.

Libertarianism although has many good aspects is too hyper-individualistic for my taste. Although the individual is important and his rights must be respected, an individual is also a member of a society which is built on a certain set of rules. Libertarians fail to understand that a minimal welfare state which prevents people from falling through the cracks is essential. Even though taxation is a form of extortion and there are a million things the private sector can do better than the government, private individuals and private organizations are not capable of ensuring that all the disadvantaged have a bare minimum to survive upon.

Libertarianism? Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism”― Murray N. Rothbard

I think there are not enough options in US politics, and on some issues, mostly foreign policy, there is just one position shared by both parties, so libertarianism is badly needed to ensure a little bit of competition.

We do? Its not really in the center in the standard authoritarian/libertarian vs conservative/progressive graph so it would seem like a bad label if that is the case (I'm not well versed on Australian political science), I'm rather curious how it came to be called that.